i'm currently taking a course on manifolds and i can't seem to decide whether it's too much or too little in terms of actual content
so far we've had >definition of manifolds & examples (quite long) >smooth functions >tangent spaces, derivations, tangent bundle >vector fields, lie derivative, bracket, bump functions >integral curves & flows >homotopy, fundamental group, covers, lifts, universal cover, deck transformations, covers of manifolds, totally discontinuous actions (quite long) >differential forms on R^n and on manifolds, closed 1-forms, covers and 1-forms, period homomorphism >paracompactness and partitions of unity >orientations, orientation cover >submanifolds
next chapter's gonna be manifolds with boundary and Stoke's theorem for n-forms, with a final chapter on geometrical structures
i'm struggling with some of the material and can't help vacillating between >maybe it's quite a lot to take in at once
and >i'm a fucking idiot, this isn't that difficult and if anything we should be learning more
if you have taken a manifolds class in your bachelor, what was it like?
I been wanting to try Cymbalata for a while now, due to my current medication of anti depressants doing a poor job on me. I take Citalopram, and my family doctor absolutely refuses to give me these pills. He claims its just for pain when it is clearly an anti anxiety/anti depressant. I have tried various doctors in town who all say the same thing. People in my family who have taken it got better after taking it.
Any advice what to do?
Help me find a positive integer x that halts or loops the Reversed Collatz Conjecture. So far, I haven't found one after 100 Billion positive integers.
x = positive integer
n = (x-1)/3
if n is an odd number:
x = n
else:
x = x*2
The founding father of the modern Big Bang theory was catholic priest Lemaitre, who favored it over other theories of how the universe came to be: to reconcile physics with creationism.
The Big Bang theory became widely accepted amongst physicists, despite very clearly contradicting several known laws of physics (requires "singularity" mental gymnastics) and failing to explain how space and time came to be.
How is the belief in the Big Bang different from religious belief, in lack of a better alternative?
How true is the following statement? >Master 1 act and its a skill. Apply that skill to multiple places and its an art. Apply that art to multiple places and its a science.
